Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
Panicked Evolutionists: The Stephen Meyer Controversy
The theory of evolution is a tottering house of ideological cards that is more about cherished mythology than honest intellectual endeavor. Evolutionists treat their cherished theory like a fragile object of veneration and worship--and so it is. Panic is a sure sign of intellectual insecurity, and evolutionists have every reason to be insecure, for their theory is falling apart.
The latest evidence of this panic comes in a controversy that followed a highly specialized article published in an even more specialized scientific journal. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, wrote an article accepted for publication in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article, entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," was published after three independent judges deemed it worthy and ready for publication. The use of such judges is standard operating procedure among "peer-reviewed" academic journals, and is considered the gold standard for academic publication.
The readership for such a journal is incredibly small, and the Biological Society of Washington does not commonly come to the attention of the nation's journalists and the general public. Nevertheless, soon after Dr. Meyer's article appeared, the self-appointed protectors of Darwinism went into full apoplexy. Internet websites and scientific newsletters came alive with outrage and embarrassment, for Dr. Meyer's article suggested that evolution just might not be the best explanation for the development of life forms. The ensuing controversy was greater than might be expected if Dr. Meyer had argued that the world is flat or that hot is cold.
Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, told The Scientist that Dr. Meyer's article came to her attention when members of the Biological Society of Washington contacted her office. "Many members of the society were stunned about the article," she told The Scientist, and she described the article as "recycled material quite common in the intelligent design community." Dr. Scott, a well known and ardent defender of evolutionary theory, called Dr. Meyer's article "substandard science" and argued that the article should never have been published in any scientific journal.
Within days, the Biological Society of Washington, intimidated by the response of the evolutionary defenders, released a statement apologizing for the publication of the article. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the society's governing council claimed that the article "was published without the prior knowledge of the council." The statement went on to declare: "We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings." The society's president, Roy W. McDiarmid, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, blamed the article's publication on the journal's previous editor, Richard Sternberg, who now serves as a fellow at the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institute of Health. "My conclusion on this," McDiarmid said, "was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part."
What is it about Dr. Stephen Meyer's paper that has caused such an uproar? Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, argued in his paper that the contemporary form of evolutionary theory now dominant in the academy, known as "Neo-Darwinism," fails to account for the development of higher life forms and the complexity of living organisms. Pointing to what evolutionists identify as the "Cambrian explosion," Meyer argued that "the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans" cannot be accounted for by Darwinian theory, "neo" or otherwise.
Accepting the scientific claim that the Cambrian explosion took place "about 530 million years ago," Meyer went on to explain that the "remarkable jump in the specified complexity or 'complex specified information' [CSI] of the biological world" cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.
The heart of Dr. Meyer's argument is found in this scientifically-loaded passage: "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
In simpler terms, the mechanism of natural selection, central to evolutionary theory, cannot possibly account for the development of so many varied and complex life forms simply by mutations in DNA. Rather, some conscious design--thus requiring a Designer--is necessary to explain the emergence of these life forms.
In the remainder of his paper, Meyer attacks the intellectual inadequacies of evolutionary theory and argues for what is now known as the "design Hypothesis." As he argued, "Conscious and rational agents have, as a part of their powers of purposive intelligence, the capacity to design information-rich parts and to organize those parts into functional information-rich systems and hierarchies." As he went on to assert, "We know of no other causal entity or process that has this capacity." In other words, the development of the multitude of higher life forms found on the planet can be explained only by the guidance of a rational agent--a Designer--whose plan is evident in the design.
Meyer's article was enough to cause hysteria in the evolutionists' camp. Knowing that their theory lacks intellectual credibility, the evolutionists respond by raising the volume, offering the equivalent of scientific shrieks and screams whenever their cherished theory is criticized--much less in one of their own cherished journals. As Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Discovery Institute explained, "Instead of addressing the paper's argument or inviting counterarguments or rebuttal, the society has resorted to affirming what amounts to a doctrinal statement in an effort to stifle scientific debate. They're trying to stop scientific discussion before it even starts."
When the Biological Society of Washington issued its embarrassing apology for publishing the paper, the organization pledged that arguments for Intelligent Design "will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings," regardless of whether the paper passes peer review.
From the perspective of panicked evolutionists, the Intelligent Design movement represents a formidable adversary and a constant irritant. The defenders of Intelligent Design are undermining evolutionary theory at multiple levels, and they refuse to go away. The panicked evolutionists respond with name-calling, labeling Intelligent Design proponents as "creationists," thereby hoping to prevent any scientific debate before it starts.
Intelligent Design is not tantamount to the biblical doctrine of creation. Theologically, Intelligent Design falls far short of requiring any affirmation of the doctrine of creation as revealed in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is a useful and important intellectual tool, and a scientific movement with great promise. The real significance of Intelligent Design theory and its related movement is the success with which it undermines the materialistic and naturalistic worldview central to the theory of evolution.
For the Christian believer, the Bible presents the compelling and authoritative case for God's creation of the cosmos. Specifically, the Bible provides us with the ultimate truth concerning human origins and the special creation of human beings as the creatures made in God's own image. Thus, though we believe in more than Intelligent Design, we certainly do not believe in less. We should celebrate the confusion and consternation now so evident among the evolutionists. Dr. Stephen Meyer's article--and the controversy it has spawned--has caught evolutionary scientists with their intellectual pants down.
_______________________________________
R. Albert Mohler, Jr
I was not speaking to that issue at all, js1138. I was speaking of such prosaic things as cell repair, metabolism, the organization of "macromolecules," of cells, tissues, organs, etc., etc., of all the constituting parts of discrete organic wholes, each and all of which must be "reconciled" with each other on a synergistic, real-time basis at every moment, and "move together" in time, in order for a living system to successful counter the setting in of thermodynamic equilibrium -- which would otherwise destroy the life of the organism.
We are not yet speaking of the same thing, i think.
That's sweet and all, but since I haven't had time to argue anything pro *or* con in the past SEVEN HUNDRED posts, your attempt to use my alleged lack of "humility" as a cheap excuse to "justify" your recent childish outburst of insults directed at OTHER posters ends up looking pretty foolish, doesn't it?
In short, the person who has acted most "swinishly" recently has been yourself. Thus my suggestion that if you can't restraint yourself, you should sit back and let the adults talk without your s***-flinging interruptions until you manage to grow up some.
I await your apology, both for likening others to swine for little or no provocation (and slandering evolutionary biology as "not science at all, but just being an animal"), and for falsely trying to use *me* as an excuse for your behavior towards *others*.
But I don't await it with bated breath, as expecting you to behave honorably is not something I'm willing to count on.
Then perhaps you should reconsider your statement that bvw's assertion is "not unjust".
Is that your final answer?
Hint: This is not a wolf, it is a new species, produced by human-directed selective breeding, and it reproduces just fine:
Come back when you have something to contribute on this subject other than your incorrect misconceptions. You know, go learn something first.
Let me try to put it this way. Ichneumon. In order for learning to take place, so that knowledge may increase, one must be willing to move beyond the comfy categories of what we know now, or think we know, and confront the yet-unknown. People who aren't willing to do that seem to turn out to be the victims of doctrine, or ideology.
Or to put it another way, to quote General George S. Patton: "If everyone is thinking alike then no one's thinking."
Now Patton was no "scientist." But he did have a keen nose for truth.
In short, IMHO the truth of reality is an open-ended question, or quest -- not a destination "shortly" to be arrived at. Or so it seems to me. FWIW.
We do not argue that point.
I agree with that, but that's *hardly* the same as what bvw was saying. Thus my surprise when you said that you "cannot say the observation is unjust" in response to his overly broad, spiteful, insulting, obnoxious, dismissive, holier-than-thou comment.
Perhaps you cannot say that it was unjust, but I have no problem at all recognizing it as such.
Would you please take another look at his comment and reconsider whether it may be "just"? I'd like to think that your first assessment was not something you'd like to stand by. If it is, then I'm going to have to reconsider my own high opinion of what I have to date taken for your fairness and civility.
This then is an argument for ID.
Sorry. ONLY temperature differences result in heat flow.
Of course you are referencing the outmoded, caloric theory of heat.
So you're saying that:
1. If you had been correct in your original assertion that "breeders breeding via well-chosen sexual pairings for characteristics" had *not* been able to produce a new species, *that* would have been "an argument for ID".
2. Since you were wrong and breeders *have* been able to produce a new species, that *also* is "an argument for ID".
Fascinating...
Sort of trying to have it both ways, aren't you?
Hint: If both "A" and "not-A" can be used as supporting arguments *for* your position, then you screwed up your logic somewhere, and your position is actually independent of any evidence at all, and completely unfalsifiable.
And you were recently accusing *other* people of holding positions which were "not science at all"...? How ironic.
For Lurkers who are interested in the subject, here's a great historical overview of how "entropy" developed: The Second Law of Thermodynamics
In biological systems, there are three different types of entropy involved:
Logical Entropy: Shannon probability-distribution entropy
Algorithmic Entropy: Kolmogorov-Solomonoff-Chaitin sequence/algorithmic complexity.
In molecular machinery, the uncertainty of the receiver before a message is received and decoded is the Shannon entropy in the before state. When the incoming message (along with noise) has been received and decoded, the uncertainty in the molecular machinery decreases to the after state, also a Shannon entropy.
The difference between the two (after state less before state) is the gain of information in bits. In Shannon, a bit is not binary. Each bit gained by this reduction of uncertainty (state change) has a corresponding release of energy into the local surroundings. That pays the 2nd Law tab of thermodynamic entropy.
voila - two different entropies, one organism.
The third kind of entropy - algorithmic entropy - is not yet well defined. Adami is a primary investigator in this particular quest. In the end, that form of entropy may supplant Shannon entropy. And because it is wrapped up in the principles of Komologrov complexity, Solomonoff induction and Chaitin randomness - it may reach to some other questions as well. But it is a work-in-progess and thus not relevant to this discussion other than to acknowledge that it is "out there".
Wolfram, in pursuing the von Neumann challenge of cellular automata (self-organizing complexity) believes that evolution has happened despite natural selection. Rocha's approach is clearly autonomous biological self-organizing complexity.
And then we have Gehring, Weiss and others who are recognizing (owing to the concurrent evolution of eyeness across phyla, including between vertebrates and invertebrates) - that a common ancestor who had no eyes would have to have master control genetic mechanisms which were not (as) subject to wholesale mutations.
All of this has developed long after Darwin and points to a direction of evolution rather than a happenstance of evolution. That does not speak to whether or not the direction was "designed" but rather that the "randomness" pillar of evolution is in dire peril.
Personally, I expect the "random mutations + natural selection > species" formulation to be replaced with "autonomous biological self-organizing complexity".
You are, at last, awakening from your stupor and becoming aware of The Laws of Intelligent Design:
The universe is made for life, therefore ID.
Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.
And fascinating, the observation that "In molecular machinery, the uncertainty of the receiver before a message is received and decoded is the Shannon entropy in the before state. When the incoming message (along with noise) has been received and decoded, the uncertainty in the molecular machinery decreases to the after state, also a Shannon entropy."
Perhaps Shannon entropy truly does refer to a "regularity" of nature -- since it would seem to hold for both the "before-case" and the "after-case" as well. If a true universal, it would be equally common to both, of course.
Fundamentally, therodynamic entropy is the only one that applies absolutely to biological systems. It is defined by:
S = k ln(Omega)
where Omega is the number of possible states available. It does not refer to order and disorder as some suggest.
Shannon's entropy is a pure construction used for engineering purposes. It is not very useful for that purpose. There was an example of signal transreceiving above that is better analyzed with rms noise and signal levels and picking an acceptable error rate. It has no general physical significance at all. It is also unrelated to S.
The same goes for algorithmic complexity theory, which contains Shannon theory as a simple case. This is used to look at the overall system as an engineering analysis, but does not indicate anything at all about how it came to be.
"Each bit gained by this reduction of uncertainty (state change) has a corresponding release of energy into the local surroundings. That pays the 2nd Law tab of thermodynamic entropy."
There is no relationship with the second law. The "bit(s)" gained is the signal and appears as power-volts and amps, depending on the impedance.
I is very clear that you "entropy" education was via the internet ...
A little dissappointed in the superbowl game. Anyway, I read your post 1713. I appreciate your ascribing anthropomorghic characteristics to these constructs which I asked you about. We are talking about humans so it seems appropriate. I assume you are Alamo-girl and are therefore female. So I would ask you a few simple questions. Do you love your husband? Have you ever had an itch? Have you ever had a gastrointestinal pain? Are all of these human responses neurohumorally mediated and a result of evolution? If there is a difference in love and a gastrointestinal pain or an itch please tell me the difference. If these are all mediated neurohumorally and the result of evolution, then I ask you if there is any purpose to life. The analysis seems to point to your ascribing your love for your husband to be of no more import or meaning than an itch. If I missed something in your series of statements please clarify.
Apparently not. I do not usually discuss abiogenesis, except to say that existing proposals are hypotheses rather than theories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.